Objective: Two experiments are presented examining adaptive and adaptable methods for invoking automation. Background: Empirical investigations of adaptive automation have focused on methods used to invoke automation or on automation-related performance implications. However, no research has addressed whether performance benefits associated with brain-based systems exceed those in which users have control over task allocations. Method: Participants performed monitoring and resource management tasks as well as a tracking task that shifted between automatic and manual modes. In the first experiment, participants worked with an adaptive system that used their electroencephalographic signals to switch the tracking task between automatic and manual modes. Participants were also divided between high-and low-reliability conditions for the system-monitoring task as well as high- and low-complacency potential. For the second experiment, participants operated an adaptable system that gave them manual control over task allocations. Results: Results indicated increased situation awareness (SA) of gauge instrument settings for individuals high in complacency potential using the adaptive system. In addition, participants who had control over automation performed more poorly on the resource management task and reported higher levels of workload. A comparison between systems also revealed enhanced SA of gauge instrument settings and decreased workload in the adaptive condition. Conclusion: The present results suggest that brain-based adaptive automation systems may enhance perceptual level SA while reducing mental workload relative to systems requiring user-initiated control. Application: Potential applications include automated systems for which operator monitoring performance and high-workload conditions are of concern.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bailey, N. R. (2004). The effects of operator trust, complacency potential, and task complexity on monitoring a highly reliable automated system. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA.
2.
Byrne, E. A., & Parasuraman, R. (1996). Psychophysiology and adaptive automation. Biological Psychology, 42, 249–268.
3.
Clamann, M. P., & Kaber, D. B. (2003). Authority in adaptive automation applied to various states of human-machine system information process. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 47th Annual Meeting (pp. 543–547). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
4.
Clamann, M. P., Wright, M. C., & Kaber, D. B. (2002). Comparison of performance effects of adaptive automation applied to various stages of human-machine system information processing. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 46th Annual Meeting (pp. 342–346). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
5.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
6.
Comstock, J. R. Jr., & Arnegard, R. J. (1992). The Multi-Attribute Task Battery for human operator workload and strategic behavior research (Tech. Memorandum No. 104174). Hampton, VA: NASA Langley Research Center.
7.
Endsley, M. R. (1988). Design and evaluation for situation awareness enhancement. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting (pp. 97–101). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
8.
Endsley, M. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37, 32–64.
9.
Endsley, M. R. (1996). Automation and situation awareness. In R. Parasuraman & M. Mouloua (Eds.), Automation and human performance: Theory and applications (pp. 163–182). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
10.
Farrell, S., & Lewandowsky, S. (2000). A connectionist model of complacency and adaptive recovery under automation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 395–410.
11.
Freeman, F., Mikulka, P., Prinzel, L., & Scerbo, M. (1999). Evaluation of an adaptive automation system using three indices with a visual tracking task. Biological Psychology, 50, 61–76.
12.
Freeman, F., Mikulka, P., Scerbo, M., Prinzel, L., & Clouatre, K. (2000). Evaluation of a psychophysiologically controlled adaptive automation system, using performance on a tracking task. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 25, 103–115.
13.
Gaillard, A. W. K. (1993). Comparing the concepts of mental load and stress. Ergonomics, 9, 991–1005.
14.
Hancock, P. A., & Chignell, M. H. (1987). Adaptive control in human-machine systems. In P. A. Hancock (Ed.), Human factors psychology (pp. 305–345). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland Publishing Co.
15.
Hancock, P. A., & Chignell, M. H. (1988). Mental workload dynamics in adaptive interface d.esign. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 18, 647–658.
16.
Hancock, P. A., Chignell, M. H., & Lowenthal, A. (1985). An adaptive human-machine system. In Proceedings of the 1985 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (pp. 627–630). New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
17.
Hancock, P. A., & Desmond, P. A. (2001). Stress, workload, and fatigue. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
18.
Harris, W., Hancock, P. A., & Arthur, E. (1993). The effect of task load projection on automation use, performance, and workload. In Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 890A–890F). Columbus: Ohio State University.
19.
Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In P. A. Hancock, & N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 239–250). Amsterdam: North Holland.
20.
Hart, S. G., & Wickens, C. (1990). Workload assessment and prediction. In H. R. Booher (Ed.), MANPRINT: An approach to systems integration (pp. 257–296). New York: Va n Nostrand Reinhold.
21.
Hilburn, B., Jorna, P. G., Byrne, E. A., & Parasuraman, R. (1997). The effect of adaptive air traffic control (ATC) decision aiding on controller mental workload. In M. Mouloua & J. Koonce (Eds.), Human-automation interaction (pp. 84–91). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
22.
Kaber, D. B., & Endsley, M. R. (2003). The effects of level of automation and adaptive automation on human performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 1, 1–40.
23.
Kaber, D. B., & Riley, J. M. (1999). Adaptive automation of a dynamic control task based on secondary task workload measurement. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 3, 169–187.
24.
Kaber, D. B., Riley, J. M., Tan, K., & Endsley, M. R. (2001). On the design of adaptive automation for complex systems. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 5, 37–57.
25.
Kaber, D. B., Wright, M. C., & Sheik-Nainar, M. (2006). Multimodal interface design for adaptive automation of a human-robot system. International Journal of Human-computer Studies, 64, 527–540.
26.
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
27.
Lee, J. D., & Moray, N. (1992). Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics, 35, 1243–1270.
28.
Lee, J. D., & Moray, N. (1994). Trust, self-confidence, and operators– adaptation to automation. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 40, 153–184.
29.
Muir, B. M. (1987). Trust between humans and machines, and the design of decision aids. International Journal of Man Machine Studies, 27, 527–539.
30.
Muir, B. M. (1994). Trust in automation: I. Theoretical issues in the study of trust and human intervention in automated systems. Ergonomics, 37, 1905–1922.
31.
Muir, B. M., & Moray, N. (1996). Trust in automation: II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics, 39, 429–460.
32.
Parasuraman, R., Bahri, T., Deaton, J. E., Morrison, J. G., & Barnes, M. (1992). Theory and design of adaptive automation in aviation systems (Progress Rep. No. NAWCADWAR-92066-60). Warminster, PA: Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division.
33.
Parasuraman, R., & Byrne, E. (2003). Automation and human performance in aviation. In P. S. Tsang & M. A. Vidulich (Eds.), Principles of aviation psychology (pp. 311–357). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
34.
Parasuraman, R., Molloy, R., & Singh, I. L. (1993). Performance consequences of automation-induced “complacency.”International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3, 1–23.
35.
Parasuraman, R., Mouloua, M., & Molloy, R. (1996). Effects of adaptive task allocation on monitoring of automated systems. Human Factors, 38, 665–679.
36.
Parasuraman, R., Mouloua, M., Molloy, R., & Hilburn, B. (1996). Monitoring of automated systems. In R. Parasuraman & M. Mouloua (Eds.), Automation and human performance: Theory and applications (pp. 91–116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
37.
Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39, 230–253.
38.
Pope, A. T., Bogart, E. H., & Bartolome, D. S. (1995). Biocybernetic system validates index of operator engagement in automated task. Biological Psychology, 40, 187–195.
39.
Prinzel, L. J., DeVries, H., Freeman, F. G., & Mikulka, P. J. (2001). Examination of automation-induced complacency and individual difference variates (Tech. Rep. No. TM-2001-211413). Hampton, VA: NASA Langley Research Center.
40.
Prinzel, L. J., Freeman, F. G., Scerbo, M. W., Mikulka, P. J., & Pope, A. T. (2000). A closed-loop system for examining psychophysio-logical measures for adaptive task allocation. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 10, 393–410.
41.
Raley, C., Stripling, R., Kruse, A., Schmorrow, D., & Patrey, J. (2004). Augmented cognition overview: Improving information intake under stress. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th Annual Meeting (pp. 1150–1154). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
42.
Riley, V. (1994). Human use of automation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, Minneapolis.
43.
Rouse, W. B. (1976). Adaptive allocation of decision making responsibility between supervisor and computer. In T. B. Sheridan & G. Johannsen (Eds.), Monitoring behavior and supervisory control (pp. 295–306). New York: Plenum Press.
44.
Rouse, W. B., Geddes, N. D., & Curry, R. E. (1988). An architecture for intelligent interfaces: Outline of an approach to supporting operators of complex systems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 22, 1296–1308.
45.
Scerbo, M. W. (1996). Theoretical perspectives on adaptive automation. In R. Parasuraman & M. Mouloua (Eds.), Automation and human performance: Theory and applications (pp. 37–63). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
46.
Scerbo, M. W. (2001). Adaptive automation. In W. Karwowski (Ed.), International encyclopedia of ergonomics and human factors (pp. 1077–1079). London: Taylor & Francis.
47.
Scerbo, M. W., Freeman, F. F., & Mikulka, P. J. (2000). A biocybernetic system for adaptive automation. In R. W. Backs & W. Boucsein (Eds.), Engineering psychophysiology: Issues and applications (pp. 24–254). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
48.
Singh, I. L., Molloy, R., & Parasuraman, R. (1993). Automation-induced –complacency–: Development of the complacency-potential rating scale. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3, 111–122.
49.
Thackray, R. I., & Touchstone, R. M. (1989). Detection efficiency on an air traffic control monitoring task with and without computer aiding. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 60, 744–748.
50.
Vidulich, M. A. (2003). Mental workload and situation awareness: Essential concepts for aviation psychology practice. In P. S. Tsang & M. A. Vidulich (Eds.), Principles of aviation psychology (pp. 115–146). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
51.
Wiener, E. L. (1988). Cockpit automation. In E. L. Wiener & D. C. Nagel (Eds.), Human factors in aviation (pp. 433–461). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
52.
Wiener, E. L., & Curry, R. E. (1980). Flight-deck automation: Promises and problems. Ergonomics, 23, 995–1011.
53.
Wilson, G. F., & Russell, C. A. (2003). Real-time assessment of mental workload using psychophysiological measures and artificial neural networks. Human Factors, 45, 635–643.
